[OnlineGladiator]

> I've been on sites with moderators who could basically just enforce the rules as they liked and it's so much better. No "well technically I'm not rule breaking" - a human makes a judgment and bans them.

I'm not sure how else to interpret what you typed.

[insanitybit]

I said nothing about lack of appeals or lack of notice. I said that mods would make judgment calls.

[OnlineGladiator]

Is there ever a situation where mods don't make judgment calls? Or are you just saying moderated is better than unmoderated?

Also you specifically pointed out that arguing over the ban is bad, which is implies appealing the ban is bad.

[insanitybit]

There are - when they go by the letter of the rules.

[OnlineGladiator]

You realize a moderator has to make a judgment on whether or not they're breaking the rules though, right? That's a human decision.

Anyway, this is a circular conversation. Cheers.

[insanitybit]

I don't think it's circular, you just put words in my mouth and now you're not understanding what it means to follow the rules to the letter versus interpreting their intent.

[OnlineGladiator]

Rules have ambiguity. If there's a rule like "no jokes allowed" how do you decide that mechanically without human judgment? Do you seriously believe everything is binary without nuance?

This entire argument is over whether or not I'm understanding your words correctly, and you're simultaneously arguing that words are not ambiguous and have a clearly defined meaning. I feel like you're missing the irony here.